TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court review jurisdiction challenged post-Supreme Court decision. Costs imposed on respondents. Upholding judicial propriety emphasized.</h1> <h3>ABBAI MALIGAI PARTNERSHIP FIRM & ANR. Versus K. SANTHAKUMARAN & ORS.</h3> The High Court's exercise of review jurisdiction after the Supreme Court's dismissal of special leave petitions was deemed improper and an affront to ... - Issues Involved: The issues involved in this case include the exercise of review jurisdiction by the High Court after the dismissal of special leave petitions by the Supreme Court, the propriety of entertaining review petitions against the same order challenged in the special leave petitions, and the abuse of court process by the respondents in filing vexatious litigation.Review Jurisdiction Exercise by High Court: The High Court's review jurisdiction was questioned as it reviewed an order after the Supreme Court had dismissed special leave petitions against the same order. The High Court's interference at that stage was deemed subversive of judicial discipline, as it had no power to review the order already challenged in the Supreme Court. The High Court's actions were considered an affront to the Supreme Court's order, and the exercise of jurisdiction was found to be palpably erroneous.Abuse of Court Process: The respondents were criticized for abusing the court process by approaching the High Court with review petitions after their special leave petitions were dismissed by the Supreme Court. The filing and hearing of review petitions after the Supreme Court's dismissal were strongly deprecated, and it was noted that the respondents engaged in vexatious litigation. The manner in which the review petitions were filed and entertained was disapproved, leading to the appeals succeeding on this ground.Decision and Costs: The appeals were allowed, and the impugned order of the High Court in the review petitions was set aside. Additionally, the respondents were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 as costs. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of upholding judicial propriety and avoiding similar instances in the future where the court's orders are disregarded or challenged improperly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
